Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE LEDEZMA, Case No.: 26-cv-02759-BTM-DDL CDCR #H-84273, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE 14 RABBI HAJHAJ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Currently before the Court is a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1983 by Joe Ledezma, who is proceeding without counsel and is incarcerated at R.J. 20 Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). (ECF No. 1.) Ledezma states he has been denied 21 an appropriate religious diet in violation of his constitutional rights. (See id.) 22 Because Ledezma has another case currently pending in this Court related to the 23 same incidents, did not submit the $405 civil filing fee required to commence a new and 24 separate civil action, and has not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 25 together with his complaint,1 the Court assumes he did not wish to file and prosecute a 26 27 1 The Court notes a prison trust account statement (ECF No. 2) was filed on Ledezma’s behalf by RJD 28 prison officials after this case was opened, but Ledezma himself has neither requested leave to proceed 1 second and duplicate civil action, but instead intended to file an amended complaint in 2 Ledezma v. Ramirez, No. 25-cv-1585-BTM-MMP (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) (“Ledezma 3 I”). Therefore, the Court dismisses this civil action without prejudice and directs the Clerk 4 to file Ledezma’s complaint (ECF No. 1) as his amended complaint in Ledezma I. 5 I. DISCUSSION 6 Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the pleading liberally and 7 hold it “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” to “afford the 8 petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hebbe v. 9 Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Indeed, “a duplicative action arising from the 10 same series of events and alleging many of the same facts as an earlier suit” may be 11 considered frivolous. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) 12 (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915[e]). 13 A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the 14 federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” Bias 15 v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 16 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). In Ledezma I, which was first filed on June 19, 2025, 17 this Court granted Ledezma leave to proceed IFP, but dismissed his complaint sua sponte 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See Ledezma I, ECF No. 5.) 19 Specifically, the Court found Ledezma failed to allege a plausible First Amendment claim 20 against Defendants Ramirez and Palmer because these individuals were not alleged to have 21 been the individuals who deprived Ledezma of religious meals. (Id. at 8.) He also failed 22 to plead due process claims against Ramirez and Palmer based on the denial of his 23 grievances. (Id. at 8–9.) Ledezma was granted leave to amend and address his pleading 24 deficiencies in Ledezma I within 45 days. (Id. at 15.) On January 27, 2026, Ledezma filed 25 a motion requesting an extension of time. (ECF No. 6.) The Court granted his request, 26 giving him until March 13, 2026, to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.) On March 27 10, Ledezma requested a second extension of time (ECF No. 8), which this Court granted, 28 giving him until April 24, 2026, to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 9, at 2.) 1 The complaint Ledezma submitted in this case was received via U.S. mail by the 2 ||Clerk of Court on April 27, 2026,” but it was not entitled as an amended complaint and 3 || Ledezma failed to include Case No. 25-cv-1585-BTM-MMP in its caption. Therefore, the 4 ||Clerk assigned it a new Civil Case No. 26-cv-2759-BTM-DDL. (See ECF No. 1.) Like 5 || his original complaint in Ledezma I, however, Ledezma alleges constitutional violations 6 related to his July 20, 2024, request for a religious diet and the refusal of staff to provide 7 with appropriate meals despite his administrative grievance on the matter being 8 || granted on January 23, 2025. (See id. at 2-5.) CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Civil Case No. 26-cv-2759-BTM-DDL 11 || without prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to administratively close this case 12 to file the complaint submitted in this matter (ECF No. 1) as Ledezma’s amended 13 || complaint in S.D. Cal. Case No. 25-cv-1585-BTM-MMP, nunc pro tunc to April 23, 2026, 14 || pursuant to the mail box rule. Once filed, the Court will screen the amended pleading in 15 || 25-cv-1585-BTM-MMP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) in due course. 16 || Ledezma is cautioned that all future pleadings intended for consideration must include S.D. 17 || Cal. Case No. 25-cv-1585-BTM-MMP on the first page and clearly identify the nature of 18 || the document in its caption. No further documents will be accepted for filing in Case No. 19 || 26-cv-2759-BTM-DDL. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ‘ Dated: May 5, 2026 j ill eek Honorable Barry Ted Mosko 23 United States District Judge 24 || a 25 ||* Notations on the envelope in which the document was mailed indicate Ledezma turned it over to RJD staff for mailing on April 23, 2026, the day before his amended pleading in Ledezma I was due. (See ECF 26 || No. 1 at 11.) Under the “mailbox rule,” a document is deemed to be “filed” when prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988); 27 |! see also Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Houston mailbox rule applies to § 1983 || suits filed by pro se prisoners.”).